How we research product comparisons
Acedly publishes commercial comparisons, so readers deserve to know exactly what is sourced, what is tested, what remains unknown, and where our incentives sit.
Effective August 3, 2026 · Applies to /compare and /alternatives
Start with the decision
Each page names the audience and decision it helps with. We do not add a criterion only because Acedly scores well on it.
Use primary sources
Current competitor product, pricing, help, and policy pages are the default sources. Third-party reviews can add context but do not override an official fact.
Separate claims from tests
A public product claim is labeled as a claim. A hands-on observation is only described as tested when the exact device, version, scenario, and date are recorded.
Leave unknowns unknown
If a capability or limit cannot be verified, it stays unscored. We do not infer absence from a missing marketing-page mention.
Recheck volatile facts
Pricing, plan limits, supported platforms, and promotions are reviewed more often than stable workflow concepts. Each evidence card shows when its official source link was last verified.
Publish the conflict
Acedly authors these comparisons and can benefit from the reader choosing Acedly. The disclosure is placed before the comparison, not hidden at the end.
Scoring rules
- • Criteria must be relevant to the stated user and task.
- • A tie remains a tie; we do not force a winner in every row.
- • Price is compared on the current public unit, not an invented annual equivalent.
- • Acedly's own latency, platform, and privacy claims are identified as first-party product data.
- • No affiliate payment changes ranking or inclusion.
Corrections
Products change. If a feature, price, or source is outdated, send the exact page and supporting official URL. We review material corrections and update the comparison date when the article itself changes.
Request a correctionReturn to the Acedly vs Final Round AI comparison →